Who does the stimulus package really stimulate?
by Bernice Powell Jackson
-Guest Columnist-
 ven
an economics slow learner
like myself can figure out that the combination of
the economic downturn already underway and the after-effects of Sept. 11
mean that the world economy is in a real tailspin. And even I can
understand that means we must find ways to get people back to work and
get the stock market confident and working at full steam again.
The administration�s proposal of how to accomplish this boils down to
giving the rich large tax rebates and give corporations big tax cuts and
a little of that will trickle down to the rest of us. In fact, the
economic stimulus package passed in the House of Representatives on Oct.
24 included $140 billion in tax cuts for wealthy individuals and
corporations. It would not only end the alternative minimum tax on
corporate income, but it would give back tax dollars already paid to
many of the largest corporations during the past 15 years. That would
mean IBM would get $1.4 billion, Ford $1 billion, and GM $833 million,
just to name a few. Imagine, if you got back all your tax dollars paid
during the past 15 years instead of the little $300 you got this summer!
 ealthy Americans
would also be
favored under this bill. Indeed, 41 percent of the tax cuts would go to
the wealthiest 1 percent of all taxpayers, with the wealthy getting an
average tax cut of $27,000 per year. On the other hand, the bottom
three-quarters would get nothing back at all. As the New Yorker
magazine points out, that means all those police officers and fire
fighters in New York City would get absolutely nothing.
Yet, this economic stimulus package has been painted in red, white
and blue and many in Washington seem to be afraid to criticize the
administration during this time of war for fear of seeming unpatriotic.
Surely, government can find a better way of stimulating the economy and
getting America back to work than tax cuts for the large corporate
campaign contributors. Surely, we can spend our money better than giving
investment banking firms nearly $5,000 per employee, using tax credits
designed to help corporations to hire welfare workers. Surely, we can
find a better way of stimulating the economy than giving corporations a
$21 billion break on income earned outside the U.S. for the next decade.
Surely, we can find a better way of stimulating the economy than giving
tax relief for a scheme to produce electricity from chicken manure (yes,
that�s in there).
hy don�t we choose to spend
public dollars in education�education for those who have lost jobs as
well as for the children of the U.S.? Why don�t we choose to spend
public dollars in public health or in transportation? Why don�t we
choose to spend public dollars in rebuilding New York? If most Americans
really understood this economic stimulus package, they would be enraged.
Instead of giving the wealthy exorbitant tax cuts, let�s put Americans
back to work with real jobs right away. Let�s not trust that eventually
the taxes refunded to the wealthy will trickle down to the rest of us.
It didn�t work during the Reagan administration and it won�t work now
either. And there�s nothing red, white and blue in an economic stimulus
package that only stimulates America�s rich.
(Bernice Powell Jackson is executive director of the Commission for
Racial Justice in Columbus, Ohio.)
|
